Wisconsin native, conservative critic of everything.
"Once abolish the God, and the government becomes the God." ---G K Chesterton
"The only objective of Liberty is Life" --G K Chesterton
"Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions" --G K Chesterton
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

The Old George Will Was Correcter

We mentioned a couple of days ago that George Will had predicted a Romney victory.

Maybe he should have recalled his 1976 scrivenings.

If nature is not as bountiful, or men’s capacities as equal, as once
was assumed, then equality must be forced on men. That is a paralyzing
thought for liberals, whose philosophy derives its name from the word
liberty.

Conservatives are comparably disarrayed. True conservatives distrust
and try to modulate social forces that work against the conservation of
traditional values.But for a century, the dominant conservatism has
uncritically worshiped the most transforming force, the dynamism of the
American economy. No coherent conservatism can be based solely on
commercialism, but this conservatism has been consistently ardent only
about economic growth, and hence about economies of scale, and social
mobility. These take a severe toll against small towns, small
enterprises, family farms, local governments, craftsmanship,
environmental values, a sense of community, and other aspects of humane
living.--quoted at RedState

That is, more or less, the distillation of Conservative political thought since Edmund Burke. Obviously, we once again distinguish "Conservative" from "Republican." (For that matter, Burke was not the first to voice it, but let's not quibble.)

Oh, by the way, just for Margaret Farrow and her followers:

...in four years let’s not go with the “he’s the most electable” argument. The most electable usually aren’t.

7 comments:

"Obviously, we once again distinguish "Conservative" from "Republican.""

No, you don't Dad29. A TRUE conservative would have never even thought about pulling the handle to vote for that RINO Romney. EVER!

And your boy Erick Erickson is only now stating the case why Romney lost when that narrative had been clearly written months ago during the fight for the Republican nomination.

You also just got to love Erickson's spin.

He initially supported Romney because hewas the "lesser of two evils" while claiming he was not abandoning his conservative principles.

Then he argued that Romney would lose to Obama because Romney lacked the proper conservative credentials.

Then on the morning of the election, he stated unequivocally that Romney would win Florida, Virginia, Colorado, and Ohio because his campaign was responsible for "firing up the Republican base", most notably those on the hard right because of his renewed commitment to conservatism.

Then he stated after Romney lost that Romney never put forward a serious agenda that catered to the right, even though conservatives were more than willing happy to be sell-outs--I mean loyal soldiers--since Romney was the nominee.

"We'll keep raising it as THE central moral issue of the era, because it is."

And your stance on the issue does not resonate with the changing demographics. So kudos to you for standing firm to your principles when it comes to this particular social matter, but it's not going to win the presidency because moderates, independents, and the disaffected have a different outlook! Push comes to shove, these groups will focus on the social issues despite their reservations about the handling of an economy.